## Facts

- The University of Maryland, a public university, conducted a search for a new Chair of the Department of Government and Politics, following a multi-level recommendation process ending with the university president.
- The search committee recommended two candidates, including Bertell Ollman, an NYU associate professor and Marxist political theorist.
- The provost recommended Ollman; the chancellor initially preferred another candidate but ultimately also recommended Ollman.
- Before final review, publicity arose focusing on Ollman’s Marxist beliefs; administrators also raised concerns about alleged irregularities in the search process.
- The vice president recommended against appointing Ollman.
- President John S. Toll, the final decision-maker, rejected the appointment, citing concerns including: alleged search irregularities and lack of thoroughness; Ollman’s rank (associate professor) relative to other candidates; limited administrative experience for chairing a major department; limited experience obtaining research grants; anticipated major change in departmental direction; and deep faculty division.
- Ollman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the rejection was based on his political beliefs and associations, seeking injunctive relief, back pay, damages, and attorneys’ fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure to appoint Ollman was substantially motivated by his political beliefs, violating the First Amendment and § 1983.
2. If protected political beliefs were a substantial or motivating factor, whether the university proved it would have made the same decision absent consideration of those beliefs under the Mt. Healthy framework.
3. Whether the former university president and the Board of Regents were liable given their roles in the decision.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed after a bench trial.
- The court found Ollman did not prove his political beliefs were a substantial or motivating factor in President Toll’s decision.
- Alternatively, the court held that even if protected beliefs played a role, the defendants proved the same decision would have been made for legitimate academic and administrative reasons.
- The court found the ultimate decision was made by President Toll, not by the former president or the Board of Regents, defeating liability as to those defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1983, a public employer may not make an adverse employment decision substantially motivated by an individual’s protected political beliefs or associations.
- Under Mt. Healthy burden shifting, once a plaintiff shows protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor, the employer avoids liability by proving it would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct.
- In assessing motivation and causation, the factfinder may credit legitimate, job-related grounds such as procedural concerns, qualifications, managerial experience, institutional needs, and faculty governance considerations.

## Conclusion

The court held that the university’s decision not to appoint Ollman was not proven to be driven by his Marxist beliefs and, in any event, would have been made on permissible grounds related to the search process and his qualifications; thus, no First Amendment violation was established under § 1983.


Ollman v. Toll, 518 F. Supp. 1196 (D. Md. 1981)